August 06, 2007

The Latest Email Dump: Growing Evidence of an Iglesias Cover-Up

by emptywheel

DOJ dumped another stash of emails while I was at YKos. Unlike the other late-in-the-scandal email dumps, this one doesn't consist primarily of emails listed on Kyle Sampson's list of withheld emails. These are new, previously unidentified emails. That's not surprising, necessarily, since this dump comes from the Deputy Attorney General's office, not the Attorney General's office (where Sampson worked). I'm curious though why this dump came when it did, since other document dumps appeared to be tied to the testimony of individuals (that is, they released the Monica-related emails before she testified, and the Miers/Taylor emails before they were scheduled to testify). In this case, the dump may be related to Paul McNulty's departure.

But I think it much more likely (since half of these emails pertain to Will Moschella, and not McNulty) that these emails are a response to HJC's interim report on the USA scandal, specifically regarding allegations relating to David Iglesias' firing.

HJC's Allegations of an Iglesias Firing Cover-Up

As I wrote when the report came out, the most incendiary allegation in the report is that DOJ conspired to keep the reasons behind David Iglesias' firing secret. It included Gonzales in this claim, but also asserted that Will Moschella and Paul McNulty may have specifically tried to cover up the actions from fall 2006 that resulted in Iglesias' firing. The report specifically alleged that Moschella and McNulty downplayed the import of an October 2006 call from Senator Domenici.

The Committee also has concern about the statements made by Mr. McNulty
and Mr. Moschella to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees
regarding the firing of David Iglesias. Neither official testified that
the firing may have been based in whole or in part on a call received
by Mr. McNulty from Senator Domenici in October 2006, even though Mr.
McNulty stated during his subsequent interview with the Committee that
such a call from Senator Domenici was at least important to his
decision not to object to Mr. Iglesias' presence on the firing list.
Furthermore, the omission of that information may have been deliberate.
Monica Goodling stated in her testimony before the Committee that the
issue of the call from Sen. Domenici had come up during a preparation
session in advance of Mr. McNulty's briefing to members of the Senate
Judiciary Committee in early February 2007, and that Mr. McNulty
directed her to omit the reference from the materials she was drafting
for him to use.

Even while Gonzales misrepresented the purpose behind some spring 2006 calls:

Other statements of concern [with regards to inaccuracy] by the
Attorney General include his testimony regarding calls received from
Senator Domenici in late 2005 and early 2006. The Attorney General
testified that, in those calls, the Senator criticized the performance
of David Iglesias, which was useful testimony for the Administration
because it suggested that Senator Domenici had concerns about Mr.
Iglesias well before the controversy surrounding the 2006 election. But
Department documents and testimony of other witnesses strongly indicate
that the calls actually concerned the Senator's request that more
resources be provided to Mr. Iglesias' district. Principal Associate
Deputy Attorney General Will Moschella, for example, was present during
each of these calls and testified that he understood them all to be
focused on the Senator's concern that more resources be provided to Mr.
Iglesias.

The Emails Pertaining to an Iglesias Cover-Up

I think many--though not all (I'll come back to those)--emails in this dump are an attempt to respond to those allegations. Consider how these emails flesh out the chronology on contacts regarding Domenici and Iglesias (previously-released emails are italicized):

December 14, 2006: Email between Sampson and Goodling listing (though it is redacted) the White House's choice to replace Iglesias. Domenici is not sure of the choice.

December 21, 2006: Domenici Chief of Staff Steve Bell calls, first DAG McNulty, but when he learns McNulty is unavailable, he speaks to Moschella. He then calls Andrea Looney, Special Assistant to President Bush, at the White House. Emails recording these calls suggest that Bell wanted a "nonpartisan" task force on corruption. Moschella responded to that request by referring to the new USA who would be appointed.

January 8, 2007: Domenici submits four names as his choice to replace Iglesias; his top choice is either Rogers (a Republican hack instrumental in getting Iglesias fired) or Peifer

February 28, 2007, 10:17 to 11:21: Scott Jennings emails Karl Rove, Fred Fielding, Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson and others, passing on a message from Domenici's Chief of Staff Bell, that Iglesias is about to reveal the Heather Wilson and Pete Domenici complaints about his non-indictment of Aragon in fall 2006. This conversation takes place just as DOJ is preparing Will Moschella to testify before HJC. Courtney Elwood passes on that email to Goodling, Roehrkasse, Scolinos, and Hertling. At the end of the email chain, Goodling tells Roehrkasse to come upstairs to the prep room.

United States Attorneys never are removed in an effort to retaliate against them or interfere with or inappropriately influence a public integrity investigation. Furthermore, in the last six years, the Department has demonstrated its extremely strong record rooting out public corruption including prosecuting a number of very high profile cases.

David Iglesias served since 2001 as U.S. Attorney in New Mexico and had a lengthy record from which to evaluate his performance. Our decision was based on performance-related concerns including issues associated with the overall management of the office among others during his 5 1/2 years as U.S. Attorney in New Mexico.

U. S. Attorneys [as directed by the U.S. Attorney Manual] are aware that all Congressional calls are to be directed to the Department of Justice's Office of Legislative Affairs and no one in the Department was aware of the specific details of the conversations between former U.S. Attorney Iglesias and members of the New Mexico Congressional delegation.

If asked ONLY whether the main Justice Department or the White House was contacted about the performance of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias:

The Department is occasionally contacted about the performance of U.S. Attorney's by home-state Senators and gives those comments the appropriate consideration. However, we will not discuss specific conversations between members and the Department on these occasions.

February 28, 2007, 12:49: Elwood provides the following to Roehrkasse:

To say USAs "never" are removed to retaliate goes beyond this Administration; remember that Nixon fired the A.G.; so we can cabin it temporally.

Doesn't [sic] say "no one in the Department was aware of the specific details of the conversations between U.S. Iglesias and members of the New Mexico Congressional delegation," indicate that we knew of the calls generally--which supports Iglesia's [sic] claims. I'd delete that and perhaps say, if true, that there is no evidence that any calls from members were rec'd by OPA.

I'd think hard about including that last bullet.

February 28, 2007, 12:51: Roehrkasse sends to McNulty; if there was content in the accompanying email, it is totally redacted.

February 28, 2007, 1:10: Marisa Taylor, the McClatchy reporter breaking this story, sends Roehrkasse a story on Iglesias' allegations, offering to update the story with a response form the department.

February 28, 2007, 1:26: Roehrkasse writes the clique noting he has incorporated input from Sampson, Scolinos, and Elwood. The new talking points read (changes are in bold):

The suggestion that David Iglesias was asked to resign because he failed to bring an indictment over a courthouse construction contract is flatly false.

The Administration has never removed a United States Attorneys [] in an
effort to retaliate against them or interfere with or inappropriately
influence a public integrity investigation. Furthermore, in the last
six years, the Department has demonstrated its extremely strong record
rooting out public corruption including prosecuting a number of very
high profile cases.

David Iglesias served since 2001 as U.S. Attorney in New Mexico and
had a lengthy record from which to evaluate his performance. Our
decision was based on performance-related concerns including issues
associated with the overall management of the office among others
during his 5 1/2 years as U.S. Attorney in New Mexico.

U. S. Attorneys [as directed by the U.S. Attorney Manual] are aware
that all Congressional calls are to be directed to the Department of
Justice's Office of Legislative Affairs and no one in the Department
was aware of the [] details of the conversations between former
U.S. Attorney Iglesias and members of the New Mexico Congressional
delegation.

If asked ONLY whether the main Justice Department or the White House
was contacted about the performance of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias:

The Department is occasionally contacted about the performance
of U.S. Attorney's by home-state Senators and gives those comments the
appropriate consideration. [IF PUSHED] We will not discuss specific
conversations between members and the Department on these occasions.

February 28, 2007, 1:30: McNulty responds to previous draft asking:

Is it over the top to say that we are disappointed that David would make such an unfounded allegation (assuming he says what is being reported he will say)?

February 28, 2007, 2:06: After receiving a response from Kelley, McNulty responds again with an email that remains totally redacted.

February 28, 2007, 2:22: Roehrkasse provides the final talking points. Only the third bullet has changed:

David Iglesias was confirmed in 2001 to a four year term as U.S. Attorney in New Mexico and was allowed to extend his service for an additional year and a half. During his 5 1/2 years of service, we had a lengthy record from which to evaluate his performance as a manger [sic] and we made our decision not to further extend his service based on performance-related concerns.

February 28, 2007, 2:43, 2:47: McNulty and Kelley exchange this last set of talking points.

March 2, 2007: Nancy Scott Finan sends an email to the clique asking about a press release, signed off by the White House, describing Domenici's contacts with Alberto Gonzales. She asks for a copy for Domenici's office.

March 4, 2007: Domenici issues a statement about his contact with Iglesias and DOJ, which includes:

I called Mr. Iglesias late last year. My call
had been preceded by months of extensive media reports about
acknowledged investigations into courthouse construction, including
public comments from the FBI that it had completed its work months
earlier, and a growing number of inquiries from constituents. I asked
Mr. Iglesias if he could tell me what was going on in that
investigation and give me an idea of what timeframe we were looking at.
It was a very brief conversation, which concluded when I was told that
the courthouse investigation would be continuing for a lengthy period.
In retrospect, I regret making that call and I apologize. However, at
no time in that conversation or any other conversation with Mr.
Iglesias did I ever tell him what course of action I thought he should
take on any legal matter. I have never pressured him nor threatened him
in any way.

[snip]

My conversations with Mr. Iglesias over the years have been
almost exclusively about this resource problem and complaints by
constituents. He consistently told me that he needed more help, as have
many other New Mexicans within the legal community. My frustration with
the U.S. Attorneyâs office mounted as we tried to get more resources
for it, but public accounts indicated an inability within the office to
move more quickly on cases. Indeed, in 2004 and 2005 my staff and I
expressed my frustration with the U.S. Attorneyâs office to the Justice
Department and asked the Department to see if the New Mexico U.S.
Attorneyâs office needed more help, including perhaps an infusion of
professionals from other districts. This ongoing dialogue and
experience led me, several months before my call with Mr. Iglesias, to
conclude and recommend to the Department of Justice that New Mexico
needed a new United States Attorney.

March 4, 2007, 4:55 to 7:03 PM: Sampson, in a panic, contacts Gonzales scheduler Andrew Beach about calls and visits Gonzales had with Domenici had in 2006. Beach comes back with meetings between Gonzales and Domenici in July 2005 and July 2006.

Senator Domenici called the Attorney General in January and April of 2006. During those calls, Senator Domenici--who initially recommended David Iglesias for the position--expressed general concerns about the performance of US Attorney Iglesias and questioned Iglesias whether he was "up to the job." At no time in the calls did the Senator mention any specific public corruption case.

Moschella responds twice, first suggesting Roehrkasse check with McNulty as well, and later asking,

Can we strike "public corruption?" I don't think he mentioned public corruption or any other type of case.

To which Roehrkasse responds,

Will, I'll call you in a moment.

My Analysis

Keep in mind this is still YKos cold and exhaustion impaired, so I'm going to have circle back onto these issues and do a tighter argument about them later, but here's my first impressions, which primarily relate to the February 28 and March 4 panics:

In it's evolving February 28 talking points, DOJ offers up two details:

A flat denial that "Iglesias was asked to resign because he failed to bring an indictment over a courthouse construction contract." Given everything we've read in the last weeks about Gonzales' wild parsing about which program he was lying about, I think we can assume this is more of the same kind of parsing, an attempt to deny the specific claim without denying that Iglesias was fired because he refused to bring indictments generally. Not to mention the fact that, if the reason was also because he failed to bring voter fraud cases, this statement would be completely correct.

The statement that: "The Department is occasionally contacted about the performance
of U.S. Attorney's by home-state Senators and gives those comments the
appropriate consideration. [IF PUSHED] We will not discuss specific
conversations between members and the Department on these occasions."

For the life of me, I don't know why they brought this up at all, since it invites the follow-ups about calls leading up to the firings. Though the question which the bullet is designed to answer--"whether the main Justice Department or the White House"--would fit in with a suggestion I made earlier: Much of this effort is an attempt to distract attention away from the White House, Domenici's call to which immediately preceded Iglesias' addition to the firing list. That is, by admitting that DOJ had spoken with Domenici, they were trying to distract attention from the possibility that the WH--and even George Bush--had spoken to him too. Given the centrality of discussions of Domenici to DOJ calls in the March 4 panic, I think this is what they were trying to do.

The March 4 panic seems to start on Friday, March 2, when Domenici's office asks for a statement from DOJ signed off on by the White House. There's no mention of such a statement (which would have been a Friday document dump) at TPMM, which I trust caught everything from this period of time. Which suggests something damning: The Sunday, March 4 Domenici statement was likely issued in coordination with the White House.

Which might explain the panic that sets in for Kyle Sampson, his attempt to find out when Gonzales met with Domenici ASAP. Now, somewhere, there is an email parsing wildly about meeting versus calling (I'll look for it later). Which might explain why--even after Sampson learned of the two dates Gonzales met with Domenici, including one later in 2006--he only mentioned Domenici's phone calls.

But now look at the neat spin about those phones, in January and April of 2006. Domenici says the following about them:

Indeed, in 2004 and 2005 my staff and I
expressed my frustration with the U.S. Attorneyâs office to the Justice
Department and asked the Department to see if the New Mexico U.S.
Attorneyâs office needed more help, including perhaps an infusion of
professionals from other districts. This ongoing dialogue and
experience led me, several months before my call with Mr. Iglesias, to
conclude and recommend to the Department of Justice that New Mexico
needed a new United States Attorney. [my emphasis]

First, he places the contacts with DOJ much earlier, in 2004 and 2005. He admits a later contact, several months before the October 2006 call with Iglesias, in which he called for Iglesias' firing--but he doesn't say whether it was in person or via the phone. And with his spinning, he invents a reason that ties his staffing concerns to his desire to fire Iglesias, which gets him out of admitting that the call he admits to making in October 2006 about the Aragon case was the final reason behind his call to fire Iglesias.

Now compare that with Gonzales' and Moschella's testimony:

Other statements of concern [with regards to inaccuracy] by the
Attorney General include his testimony regarding calls received from
Senator Domenici in late 2005 and early 2006. The Attorney General
testified that, in those calls, the Senator criticized the performance
of David Iglesias, which was useful testimony for the Administration
because it suggested that Senator Domenici had concerns about Mr.
Iglesias well before the controversy surrounding the 2006 election. But
Department documents and testimony of other witnesses strongly indicate
that the calls actually concerned the Senator's request that more
resources be provided to Mr. Iglesias' district. Principal Associate
Deputy Attorney General Will Moschella, for example, was present during
each of these calls and testified that he understood them all to be
focused on the Senator's concern that more resources be provided to Mr.
Iglesias. [my emphasis]

Gonzales and Moschella are talking about different dates than Domenici, closer in time to the firing. Gonzales seems to miss an interim step Domenici made in his story--to suggest that resource concerns were behind the larger concerns about performance. But Moschella apparently testified that that those resource concerns never translated into a general concern about Iglesias' performance. In other words, Moschella says those calls had nothing to do with the firing.

Finally, now look at the talking point DOJ put together on these meetings:

Senator Domenici called the Attorney General in January and April of
2006. During those calls, Senator Domenici--who initially recommended
David Iglesias for the position--expressed general concerns about the
performance of US Attorney Iglesias and questioned Iglesias whether he
was "up to the job." At no time in the calls did the Senator mention
any specific public corruption case. [my emphasis]

Now in some ways this talking point closely matches Domenici's and Gonzales' statements, in that it ties what appear to be resource issues into a performance issue implicating Iglesias. But it uses a third set of dates, even while ignoring the face-to-face meetings between Gonzales and Domenici!!

More importantly, look at how closely the events surrounding this email match Moschella's eventual testimony. In response to reading this talking point, Moschella specifically says there was no discussion of public corruption. At which point, Roehrkasse tells him he'll call to talk him through that bit, presumably because he doesn't want to do it via email. This strongly supports the claim they were engaged in a strategy of distraction. The different responses place the conversations on three different sets of dates, none of them including the face-to-face meetings, and none of them those later dates immediately preceding the firings. The general story about them only varies about the degree to which they emphasize resources with no related Iglesias performance concern (Moschella) and a specific concern about Iglesias' productivity (Gonzales and Domenici).

But for some reason, DOJ wants to include a reference to public corruption in its statement, even though no one alleges that there was a discussion of public corruption at that time. Apparently in concert, DOJ, the White House, and Iglesias Domenici appear to be trying to deny the importance of Domenici's calls (to Gonzales, but also to Rove and Bush) later in the year, by having these innocuous conversations substitute for the later ones, by using a denial about the earlier calls substitute for a denial about the later calls.

I think HJC is honing in on a cover-up, including evidence of the way the White House was centrally involved in that cover-up.

Comments

I think you are right that it is relation to the interim report which, despite being a tad long and rambling, contained some fairly juicy stuff. Also, some concurrent statements made by Iglesias on MSNBC and CNN.

Good analysis, as always. At this point, any public statement that states "We never did that for X reasons" should probably be viewed presumsptively as an admission that they did that for Y and Z reasons.

Wow. Thanks for the analysis. But will anyone do anything about this information that indicates the coordinated cover-up of the political firings?

After all, Pelosi's organization(?) is close to as politically incompetent as the hacktacular and confused bushies are at actual governance. If the HJC determines that there was a coordinated effort to hide WH direction to fire politically uncompliant USAs then the House leadership must WORK to make sure that all members understand this outrage and vote accordingly. I have so little faith that it will be sent to the floor; there will be a failure to catapult the propaganda; then the vote is lost in the chaos that is Dem house leadership.

"At some point after the election last Nov. 6, Domenici called Bush's senior political adviser, Karl Rove, and told him he wanted Iglesias out and asked Rove to take his request directly to the president."

A maybe invalid point, but was he Senior plitical advisor Karl Rove, or was he Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove at that particular moment...

Interesting, the Tale of Two Turdblossoms...

If you were to split Karl into his two administrative halves, the Deputy Chief of Staff, and Director of the Political Office, and put them in separate offices, every time they got together to strategize, it would be a violation of the hatch act, (albeit, interpreted narrowly."

So, basically, that would make Rove a walking Hatch Act violation, all in one body.

EW, the talking point stalker. Once again, EW demonstrates how talking points cut both ways: They can obscure the truth and at the same time, they can lead you to it. EW, you do this better in your sleep than I do at peak performance. Thank you. You're the best.

No, that is an interesting point, since as Deputy COS he'd fall in a different place in the list of people who could contact DOJ. They would argue that the conversations related to personnel in any case, meaning anyone could have that conversation. But since we know they were talking about one particular case (plus the non-filing of fraud cases)...

Do they just pick whichever title protects Rove the most in any given situation?

And was Domenici calling Rove for political reasons or administrative reasons, if Rove went into politicalmode and pushed Iglesias' name on to Goodling and Sampson, THEN went to the President on Domenici's behalf, he put the political cart before the presidential horse, in terms of any executive privelege claims...

JEP the only thing you are missing here is a Congress that actually gives a damn about upholding their oath of office. Other than that "little" factor, I think you have a pretty decent bead on things in general...

OK so you think that the law violations will get the Bushco crimes punished by the facts. It seems to me Impeachment might. This is "Above the Law" politicos in action Rove does the Hip Hop Dance challenging you and declares checkmate and runs out the clock with the cooperation of the sissies in congress.
Pelosi and Reid do not have the political will for a no holds barred rumble. Take off the comity gloves and fight for our rights or take a hike in 2008. You have to talk to them using their own language. They are partand parcel of the same crookery or they would go after then effectively. Pontificate all you want but IMPEACH.

Here's something to consider about those emails. They were all originally printed out in March 2006 (3/9, 3/12, 3/13). The cover letter accompanying this dump says that they weren't supplied before because they related to efforts to respond to media and Congressional inquiries and that DOJ is supplying them now because on July 5, the HJC staff showed a "particularized" need for these documents.

It is interesting to me that the HJC hasn't published the McNulty and Moschella privilege logs where these documents are identified.

It looks like their number one priority is to insulate Dubya from being seen as directly hands-on involved in anything, so if push comes to shove they'd probably dump Domenici in a heartbeat.

Thus, we should build the case against Domenici with the tie-in to the White House and Rove.

It builds our case for over-politicization of DoJ by the WH while also building a political case against Domenici...just in case someone wants to run against him. BTW, when is he up for re-election? Isn't he about old enough to 'spend more time with his family'?

Wm Ockham. The coffee is still brewing so the mind is not. please therefore someone remind me. when Dominici wants to spend that time with his family, isn't it heather wilson who is going to make that possible as his heir apparent? and if I remember correctly, can EW make something hair-raising for Heather of her calls?